It is still murder

A woman who aborted her baby when she realised that it would be born with Down's Syndrome tries to sound appropriately contrite and begs our understanding:
One in 1,000 babies in the UK — about 750 a year — is born with Down’s syndrome. But with better screening, increasingly it is detected in the womb, and of those couples who receive an ante-natal diagnosis, 92 per cent choose to have a termination — that’s around 1,000 pregnancies a year, or three a day. 
In addition, under the Abortion Act, termination of a baby with Down’s syndrome is a legal right up to the point of delivery
Tim and I hugged, sobbed and talked till we were exhausted. How could we bring a child into the world knowing he would suffer and, given his host of serious health problems, would soon die? 
A termination was the kindest option for our son but also the most agonising for us. 
When the consultant broke the news that I would be given medication to trigger labour and deliver my baby naturally, initially it felt like more than I could cope with. 
But the more I thought about it, I realised that I wanted to give birth to Oscar — Tim had suggested the name when we found out we were having a boy. It was a name we’d liked when I was expecting Delilah. 
Although some people may find it strange, I also wanted to hold him, so I would know what he had looked like and feel I had been close to him. 
Signing the consent form almost destroyed me and after I’d taken the medication we went home to wait for labour to begin. 
I lay on the sofa and strapped a monitor to my tummy so that I could hear Oscar’s heartbeat and I willed him to move. 
Incredibly, the night before I delivered him, I felt those first fluttery kicks inside me and dissolved into tears, relieved that I could feel my son, but distraught that I was about to lose him. 
When 48 hours had passed and I hadn’t gone into labour, I was called back to the hospital. We drove there early on July 14. Pink Floyd’s Wish You Were Here played on the car radio and I remember thinking how sad and fitting the words were. 
After being given more medication, I went into labour at 9am and delivered Oscar at 1.20pm. Tim and I were so in love with him and yet so impossibly sad. 
We took photos as you would with any newborn. One friend told me recently that she couldn’t understand anyone wanting pictures of their dead baby. 
But that’s because she’d never been in my situation, knowing that if I didn’t take photos then, I’d never have any of my son. 
After an hour with Oscar we felt the time was right to let the midwives — who were also visibly upset — take him away. He was wrapped in a little blanket I’d made for him with a sailboat stitched onto it. 
When we held a private funeral for him a few days later, he would be buried in that blanket, immersed in our love for ever. 
When we got into the lift to leave the hospital that afternoon, by chance we ended up sharing it with a couple who had their gorgeous newborn in his car seat ready to make the journey home. Yet our own hands and hearts were empty.
I urge you to be as fair-minded as you can be and read the whole article before you leap to judgement. Unusually for someone attempting to defend abortion, this woman writes very well about an extremely personal issue. And, just as unusually, for the most part she does not try to pretend that what she aborted was anything other than a human being. Moreover, she makes a critical point: we can all talk about whether or not we, personally, support abortion- but until we're forced to confront the possibility ourselves, we cannot know how we will react.

That, however, is as far as my sympathy goes. What she did is still murder, no matter how you try to justify it.

You may well come to different conclusions than I did, because you might just believe that a woman has every right to do with her body whatever the law says she can do.

If, however, you understand and respect human life for what it is, the only rational conclusion that you can come to is that this woman murdered her unborn child.

She may well have done it with the best of intentions. She may well be heartsick and wracked with guilt over what she did. But she killed her unborn child, and she did so for deeply selfish reasons.

Those who defend the sickening, awful reality of abortion do so on the basis of really rather flimsy moral and utilitarian arguments. They fail to acknowledge the one simple, inescapable fact about human foetuses: they are human. They are not iguanas or cattle or dogs. They are not some random collection of cells and DNA. They are people. And by killing off foetuses, they are killing off unborn humans.

Mrs. Treussard does not try to dodge this fact, to her considerable credit. But this does not alter the reality that she aborted her baby, and for specifically selfish reasons. As she writes in the article, she did so because she was afraid that the amount of time and attention required to look after her special-needs son would take away from the time and attention paid to her daughter.

At all points in the decision-making process, she and her husband looked at what would be "best" for their unborn child. Unfortunately for the child himself, he never had a say. And he never will- he's dead, through no fault of his own. He never even knew what it meant to be alive as a functional, living human being.

As for the question of whether or not one can successfully raise a child with Down's Syndrome- well, we could try asking one Sarah Palin and her husband about it. She didn't consider aborting her child when it turned out that he had Down's Syndrome, even though, by Mrs. Treussard's "logic", it would have been "kinder" to Trig Palin to do so.

This article unintentionally serves as a great way to underline the hypocrisy of abortionists who claim that abortion is a "humane" option for children with learning disabilities. After all, if we're going to argue that aborting children with severe learning and cognitive impairments is kinder for the children, what about aborting children with genetic markers for homosexuality? For if, indeed, research ends up showing that homosexuality is at least as much a function of genetics and heredity as it is of environment and upbringing, and given that homosexuals in almost every culture are regarded as anywhere from abnormal to blasphemous, logically it would be "kinder" and "more humane" to abort homosexuals in the womb too, would it not?

I would love to see the cognitive dissonance in liberal brains everywhere when forced to confront the possibility of that choice. It would be worse for them than trying to figure out whether driving a Toyota Prius through a pristine desert is good or evil.

Parents like Mrs. Treussard deserve sympathy and support when it turns out that their children will have severe cognitive impairments and genetic disorders, like Down's Syndrome or spina bifida (open spine). This is not only the Christian and charitable thing to do, it is the human thing to do. But no self-professed lover of life and all of its blessings can support a decision to abort such a child.

I could go on in this vein, but I'll leave the last word to a master wordsmith- Mr. John C. Wright himself:
Since sex is ordered toward reproduction, anything that hinders it is an imperfection. Prudence, if nothing else, would warn potential mother and potential fathers not to do the act which makes you a mother or a father until you have a household and loving union ready to rear children. 
If you are artificially sterile, or using contraception, you are holding back, you are not passionate about the sex, you are trying to use the sex rather than surrender to the sex. 
You are trying to have sex without really having sex, and this alters your soul and body in countless subtle ways, and the woman knows it, and senses the mistrust, the misgivings, indeed, the fear — the nagging thought that the contraception might fail hangs across the passion and prevents total surrender to passion. And if she is using the pill, her hormones, the ones directly related to fertility, sex, sexual passion, and love have been interfered with. But even if she is not using the pill, she is using you and you are using her, trying to get the union of sex without the physical sex act and the physical results. 
The only way to make the contraception infallible is to agree to hinder the sex act by killing the child once he is conceived but before he is born, an act so horrific and unthinkable — even the Spartans did not make the baby’s own mother toss the helpless baby into the pit of the Apothetae — that no more need be said of it. If you doubt me, I’d like you to imagine holding your beloved in your arms, and whispering tenderly in her ear as the erotic passion mounts, “I love you and adore you and after I make mad, passionate love to you, we will kill Junior. We will kill him together! The doctor will pierce his delicate skull with scissors, and vacuum up his wee little brains!” — I am guessing that will kill the mood.


  1. Sorry to mention. Are my comments getting through? The last few appeared to be eaten up. In the case it was missed, here's a repost:

    "She didn't consider aborting her child when it turned out that he had Down's Syndrome, even though, by Mrs. Treussard's "logic", it would have been "kinder" to Trig Palin to do so."

    Things never change:

    "The book "Povestirile Slavone" tells how Vlad the Impaler (Dracula) impaled anyone who was found guilty, nobles, soldiers and priests - no exceptions. The same book indicates he was trying to eliminate from society, people in poverty. He announced to all, the blind, handicapped, elderly, poor, etc., an invitation to a party (similar to a charity dinner) in a special house. All of the people invited, entered the house, ate and drank. After, Vlad the Impaler asked them if they wanted to cease to be a burden to their loved ones and end their poverty. All the people present agreed. When he heard that, he ordered the house set on fire and all the people were killed."

    The next logical step of involuntary euthanasia is already underway, as Vox Day reports. The only measure of what it means to be human to these people is the ability to defend oneself.

    1. Hey man, good to see you're still around. How are you doing?

      The next logical step of involuntary euthanasia is already underway, as Vox Day reports. The only measure of what it means to be human to these people is the ability to defend oneself.

      Yes. Involuntary euthanasia is very much underway in Europe; it may well come to the US and the rest of the world in the near future. If so, we're in very deep trouble. Murdering helpless babies is one thing- if you squint really hard after hitting your head forcefully against a brick wall in between doing a dozen vodka shots, you can just about convince yourself that a foetus isn't really human and can therefore be killed off without repercussions. (That, incidentally, is a pretty good description for the way most abortionists seem to think.)

      But it's extremely difficult to convince oneself that Grandpa is not human, no matter how much pain he's in because of his terminal brain cancer. And convincing oneself that someone else is not human is the only way that involuntary euthanasia can seem to be anything other than plain murder- no matter how compassionate or selfless the motive.


Post a comment

Contact the Didact:

Popular Posts